Knowing: Critical and Uncritical

In my last post I discussed what I have learned about the mechanics of cervical motion. The information I learned I gained from my text book entitled Management of Common Musculoskeletal Disorders which was edited by Hertling and Kessler. Interestingly, the section from which I took my information has no reference to scientific research. One statement was made that certain cervical mechanics are obvious to observation on dynamic roentgenograms (x-rays). Another reference was made to a text written in the 1970's. Whether the information in this reference was based on research or not is unknown to me.

It appears that I have managed to gain a great deal of knowledge about the mechanical function of the human cervical spine while circumventing modern day scientific practices. How did I do that? I did it in the way that most pupils gain their knowledge--through an uncritical process of information assimilation. I, the learner, uncritically except from my teacher (the text) "factual" information about the spine. The verifiability of this knowledge is not of immediate concern to the novice pupil whose is merely attempting to gain mastery of the teacher's principals. Primary concerns for the pupil pertain to intaking information, assimilating information, learning the teachers story and recreating the teachers story in his words. Doing this process assists the pupil with creating a working theoretical model for interacting with a physical reality. Once this theoretical model is mastered by the student he can interact with the physical reality in various experiments to test the veracity and productivity of the theory.

The philosopher Michael Polanyi compared this uncritical process of learning to a microbiologist who studies the amoeba through a microscope. The microbiologist uncritically looks beyond the lens to critically evaluate the amoeba. His assumption is that the lens has been polished well and the curvature of the lens has been correctly shaped to reflect the image in a non-distorting way. During his crituque of the amoeba it is impossible for him to be critical of the lens. Here the lens is functioning as an extension of his own eye.

And so this is one arguement for personal knowledge in the modern world. I wonder how much knowledge is accumulated in the professional world in this manner?